Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

ÁõÈıº¼º ¹× ºñÁõÈıº¼º °£³»´ãµµºÎÁ·ÁõÀÇ ÀÓ»óÀû °íÂû Clinical Evaluation of Syndromic and Nonsyndromic Intrahepatic Bile Duct Paucity

´ëÇѼҾƼÒÈ­±â¿µ¾çÇÐȸÁö 1999³â 2±Ç 2È£ p.178 ~ 184
ÇѼöÁø, ÃÖº¸È­, ±è°æ¸ð, °­°æÈÆ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
ÇѼöÁø ( Han Su-Jin ) 
¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾Æ°úÇб³½Ç

ÃÖº¸È­ ( Choi Bo-Hwa ) 
¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾Æ°úÇб³½Ç
±è°æ¸ð ( Kim Kyung-Mo ) 
¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾Æ°úÇб³½Ç
°­°æÈÆ ( Kang Kyung-Hoon ) 
¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ Áø´Üº´¸®Çб³½Ç

Abstract

¸ñÀû : °£³»´ãµµºÎÁ·ÁõÀº ½Å»ý¾Æ ´ãÁóÁ¤Ã¼ÁõÀÇ Áß¿äÇÑ ¿øÀÎÀÇ ÇϳªÀ̸ç, ´ãµµÆó¼âÁõ°ú´Â
°æ°ú¿Í ¿¹ÈÄ°¡ ´Ù¸£´Ù. ÀÌ¿¡ °£³»´ãµµºÎÁ·ÁõÀÇ .ºóµµ¿Í ÀÓ»ó ¾ç»ó, °æ°ú, ¿¹ÈÄ µîÀ» ¾Ë¾Æº¸±â
À§ÇÏ¿© º» ¿¬±¸¸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´´Ù.

´ë»ó ¹× ¹æ¹ý : 1994³â 3¿ùºÎÅÍ 1999³â 5¿ù±îÁö ½Å»ý¾Æ ´ãÁóÁ¤Ã¼·Î °£Á¶Á÷ »ý°ËÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÑ
2¼¼ ¹Ì¸¸ÀÇ ¿µ¾Æ 42¸íÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î À̵éÀÇ Á¶Á÷ »ý°Ë Ç¥º»À» Àç°ËÇÏ¿´°í, À̵é Áß °£³»´ãµµ
ºÎÁ·ÁõÀ¸·Î Áø´Ü¹ÞÀº 14¸í¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© ÈÄÇâÀûÀ¸·Î Àǹ«±â·ÏÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á°ú :
1) ´ãÁóÁ¤Ã¼ÁõÀ¸·Î °£Á¶Á÷ »ý°ËÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÑ È¯¾Æ 42¸í Áß, ´ãµµÆó¼âÁõÀÌ 23¸í(54.8%), °£³»
´ãµµºÎÁ·ÁõÀÌ 14¸í(33.3%), ½Å»ý¾Æ °£¿°ÀÌ 5¸í(11.9%)À̾ú´Ù. °£³»´ãµµºÎÁ·Áõ Áß¿¡¼­
Alagille ÁõÈıºÀÌ 4¸íÀ̾ú°í ºñÁõÈıº¼º °£³»´ãµµºÎÁ·ÁõÀÌ 10¸íÀ̾ú´Ù.
2) Alagille ÁõÈıº ȯ¾Æ 4¸í Áß, ÇöÀç 3¸íÀº Áö¼ÓÀûÀÎ ´ãÁóÁ¤Ã¼°¡ ÀÖÀ¸¸ç, 1¸íÀº ȸº¹µÇ¾ú
´Ù.
3) ºñÁõÈıº¼º °£³»´ãµµºÎÁ·Áõ ȯ¾Æ¿¡¼­ TORCH, Syphilis, EBV, HAV, HBV, HCVÀÇ °¨
¿° Áõ°Å³ª ´ë»ç¼º ÁúȯÀÇ Áõ°Å°¡ ¾ø´Â Ư¹ß¼ºÀ̾ú°í, À̵éÁß ÃßÀû°üÂûÀÌ °è¼ÓµÇ¾ú´ø ȯ¾Æ´Â
8¸íÀ̾úÀ¸¸ç, Æò±Õ 36.8°³¿ùÀÇ ÃßÀû°üÂû ±â°£µ¿¾È 7¸íÀÇ È¯¾Æ¿¡¼­ Ç÷û ºô¸®·çºóÀÌ Á¤»ó ¹ü
À§·Î µÇ¾ú°í, 1¸íÀÇ È¯¾Æ°¡ °£ÀÌ½Ä ¼ö¼ú ÈÄ¿¡ Ç÷û ºô¸®·çºóÀÌ Á¤»óÄ¡°¡ µÇ¾ú´Ù.

°á·Ð : ½Å»ý¾Æ ´ãÁóÁ¤Ã¼Áõ ȯ¾Æ¿¡¼­ °£³»´ãµµºÎÁ·ÁõÀÇ ºóµµ°¡ ÀûÁö¾Ê¾Æ ½Å»ý¾Æ ´ãÁóÁ¤Ã¼
ÁõÀÇ °¨º° Áø´Ü¿¡ ¹Ýµå½Ã Æ÷ÇÔ½ÃÄÑ¾ßµÉ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ý°¢µÇ¸ç, ¿¹ÈÄ ÆÇÁ¤¿¡´Â º¸´Ù ¸¹Àº ȯ¾Æ¿Í
Àå±â°£ÀÇ ÃßÀû°üÂûÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÇϳª ºñÁõÈıº¼º °£³»´ãµµºÎÁ·ÁõÀÇ °æ¿ì ´ëºÎºÐ ¾çÈ£ÇÑ ¿¹Èĸ¦ º¸
¿´´Ù.

Purpose : The aims of this study were to evaluate the clinical manifestations and
prognosis of the syndromic and nonsyndromic intrahepatic bile duct paucity (IHBDP).

Methods : We studied histology of 42 infants with neonatal cholestasis. Fourteen
patients were diagnosed as IHBDP. We evaluated the clinical manifestations, courses and
prognosis retrospectively.

Results : Underlying disease of the 42 infants with neonatal cholestasis were biliary
atresia in 23, intrahepatic bile duct paucity in 14 (Alagille syndrome in 4 and
nonsyndromic IHBDP in 10), neonatal hepatitis in 5 infants. The mean ratio of the bile
ducts per portal tract was 0.087 (range: 0¡­0.5). The manifestations in 4 patients with
Alagille syndrome demonstrated as follows: characteristic face in 3, chronic cholestasis
in 4, posterior embryotoxon in 2, vertebral anomalies in 2, peripheral pulmonary stenosis
in 2. One of 4 patients of Alagille syndrome improved cholestasis and the other 3
patients were remained their cholestasis and growth retardation. All patients of the
nonsyndromic IHBDP were idiopathic. Seven out of 8 patients of nonsyndromic IHBDP
showed improvement of cholestasis, and one patient received liver transplantation due to
cirrhosis.

Conclusion : This study suggested that IHBDP should be considered in the differential
diagnosis of neonatal cholestasis. The outcome of idiopathic IHBDP was better than
predicted.

Å°¿öµå

Alagille syndrome; Nonsyndromic intrahepatic bile duct paucity; Neonatal cholestasis;

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed
KAMS